Just having a story repeatedly bring up sacrifice doesn't necessarily make it a thematic element. Is the Mass Effect series saying anything about sacrifice? Is 'sacrifice' represented ludically?
I think "space ships" are the main theme about Mass Effect. They're far more central than "sacrifice" Heck Shepard spends most of the game on one! 
Imo the whole theme of sacrifice kind of falls flat in just how easy it is to avoid making a sacrifice in the majority of decisions, specifically in regards to Paragon Shep. Renegade goes along with sacrifice because the general ideal is about doing unpleasant things for the sake of the greater good, although many times Shep takes too much pleasure in it for it to even feel like a sacrifice. When it comes to Paragon, what do you really even sacrifice at all? You could say it's about sacrificing security for the sake of morality, but I don't think your security is ever even compromised because every damn leap of faith Shep takes is rewarded.
Take the Collector Base decision, that's a big one. Renegade's sacrifice would be handing the base over to an organisation you don't trust, and whose objectives you don't agree with - unless of course you're roleplaying a Shep who fully supports Cerberus. On the flipside, Paragon is supposed to be sacrificing a potential means to defeating the Reapers in favour of ridding the galaxy of an "abomination" and maintaining stability by not giving Cerberus another grenade to detonate in their own faces. Only it doesn't even work. Whatever you choose, the whole meaning behind the sacrifice is killed because the Base serves no purpose in defeating the Reapers, and destroying it does nothing to prevent Cerberus' antics.
I guess I'd say sacrifice is a theme, but not the overarching one. That's just one example, there are others where the sacrifice is actually felt, like killing Mordin and betraying Wrex to prevent another possible Krogan mess. Unless you have Wreav and convince Mordin the Genophage was right, that is.
I guess I'd say sacrifice is a theme, but not the overarching one. That's just one example, there are others where the sacrifice is actually felt, like killing Mordin and betraying Wrex to prevent another possible Krogan mess. Unless you have Wreav and convince Mordin the Genophage was right, that is.
I think sacrifice is closer to being a motif.
What is this theme you humans are on about? Laying waste to my enemy is the goal. My gun is my theme.
What is this theme you humans are on about? Laying waste to my enemy is the goal. My gun is my theme.
I thought the main theme was:
Yes, and I will play it as I lay waste to my enemies.
I think sacrifice is closer to being a motif.
No. It's happened once in recorded history. Every other verified instance has been the Reapers suborning the synthetics. Self-fulfilling prophecies do not count.
Except many organic civilizations during Leviathan times, just like, you know, Leivathan told.
We can't live through one million cycles to see outcome in each one of them, and if it is stated that synthetic do rebel, there is no reason to distrust that claim.
Guest_marburg_*
We can't live through one million cycles to see outcome in each one of them, and if it is stated that synthetic do rebel, there is no reason to distrust that claim.
There was something from ME1, where an AI rebelled against its creator.
Just pointing that out.
My point about arguing with the Catalyst about this still stands. It's futile to argue him.
You can't really reason with the Reapers. This was said in the first 10 minutes of the game. It was also said in the first game as well. Shepard's warm-hearted compassion is no match for the Reaper's cold-hearted logic.
Oh my god, leave.
Before or after an indoctrinated TIM ratted the Crucible out?
In fact I'd say indoctrination is a pretty good way to keep tabs on people. Of course, our own history has demonstrated you don't need to spy on every single citizen to dominate a population.
Most governments do not consist of immortal, unaccountable AIs. You can't vote them out of office, and are unlikely to take kindly to revolution
And even a paragon Shepalyst will still be out there, watching, ready to interfere if anyone dares go against whatever its definition of "protect the many" may be,
With the Sepalyst's voiceover talking about how it's going to set the galaxy right by its own definition. With Reapers lurking in the backround of the pictures.
I'd also advise you not to throw too many stones when it comes to being biased.
What misdirection? It ties directly to the situation at hand.
The last Catalyst had a mandate to "preserve life" We get the cycles and the Reapers.
The current Catalyst's mandate is to "preserve the many"? How many ways can that be mangled by bizarre logic? This isn't hysteria. It's a serious, proven concern.
... dude, no. You're making **** up. Blatantly.
Given how readily you'll dismiss fallacies let's see if your claims can actually be soundly deduced from the information we're given...
-- Shepalyst states no intention of using indoctrination or even monitoring individuals at all times in Control epilogue, thus is it possible it never will.
-- No Control slides depict surveillance by the Reapers, thus it is possible it never will.
-- Shepalyst does not state he will override popular vote/demand to act as he sees fit, thus it is possible it never will.
-- Your quote is wrong. The intent to "preserve the many" is never stated. It is either "protect the many" (Paragon) or "lead the many" (Renegade).
Burden of proof is yours and you have none; it literally does not exist. I'm calling it headcanon because that's what it is. It's a possibility, but not stated fact, and no more valid than any claims I can make that what you think will happen will actually never happen.
As for the misdirection ... I have provided examples of things that could be considered "threats to the many." Again, they are: [galaxy-wide war], [extra-galactic threats], [natural disaster] (to name only a few). Normal governments respond to those things all the time. They are expected to. So, back to my original point: how is this statement problematic?
If you want to get obtuse and claim that the Reapers will go straight to harvesting again as the solution, let me point out organic government is capable of that too. Don't believe me? It happened. The Virtual Alien was a response to imminent supernova (a "threat to the many," I would point out) by making everyone upload themselves mentally into an AI ship as it was the only solution they could think of.
So... anarchy it is, then? I mean, it's always possible the Citadel Council might one day conspire to turn everyone into smoothies if the situation grows desperate enough and they might succeed. Clearly they must be thrown out with the bathwater.
No. It's happened once in recorded history. Every other verified instance has been the Reapers suborning the synthetics. Self-fulfilling prophecies do not count.
Once? I counted seven in our recorded history (and I am probably missing a few)!!
No self-fulfilling prophecies in my count, either, but you can not say they "do not count" and claim to have logic on your side. You cannot trust that an AI will never operate on faulty logic (if anything, that would be one of the most likely causes of some major conflict between organic and synthetic). If you are trusting that then it is a hole in your logic.
Criminy cripes, you are basically discounting the #1 cause of death in all galactic history.
And yes, Control is disqualified because it does mean synthetics dominate organics. But no, the Rannoch peace is not disqualified because of the upgrades. That is not what's required for peace. What's required is the quarians stop shooting at the geth. And afterwards, it's quite clear that the geth and quarians are for the time being at least, coexisting in peace. Neither ruling over the other.
And they only stop shooting after Shepard informs Admiral Gerrel (Para/Rene dialogue option irrelevant) that the geth are powering back up to full strength and thus will surely lay the quarian fleet to waste. Gerrel gave the order to continue the attack once he saw the geth were "completely vulnerable." He wanted them all gone, tried to do it when the opportunity presented itself, and will only be stopped if you convince him it's his own funeral.
No way around this. Do not even try it.
That's a semantics discussion that probably won't run in your favor.
I don't think semantic arguments run in anyone's favor.
There was something from ME1, where an AI rebelled against its creator.
Technically the AI rebelled against, it's creator's creator. The thief built an AI which then built the AI that Shepard encounters, the thief destroyed the original program he created and the AI in the mission sabotaged the thief in revenge.
Guest_marburg_*
Oh my god, leave.
I think I'll stay, but thanks for the offer.
If you believe the Catalyst. If you believe Admiral Hackett, he said the Crucible will only destroy the Reapers.
Catalyst also said that Shepard would die because he's partly synthetic, yet he wakes up if you have a high enough EMS score.
That reads as a "war is hell" theme more than a sacrifice one. Mordin is an example of sacrifice, the rest come from the "harsh realities of war" angle, particularly what Garrus says. And like he says in ME2 - "We're going to lose people". Lose, not sacrifice. Even when you can use the word it doesn't make it the theme.It's true that in war stories, mostly heroic ones, the act of a sacrifice is inevitably a plot point. But in ME3 it doesn't just happen, it happens and keeps happening, and they talk about it repeatedly. Its not simply one person accepting a death sentence for others or some greater goal like Mordin, Thane (ok... debatable), Legion, Victus, Samara, or Shepard, it's also people being explicity sacrificed (practically given a death sentence) by others - Hacket's conversation about the fleet's retreat, the Council using Earth to buy time for themselves, Garrus' explicit ruthless calculus and ongoing developments, Shepard and Aralakh compnay, TIM's "plan", the Reaper's cycle, one could go on (*scratches head for a minute* or maybe not).
... dude, no. You're making **** up. Blatantly.
Given how readily you'll dismiss fallacies let's see if your claims can actually be soundly deduced from the information we're given...
-- Shepalyst states no intention of using indoctrination or even monitoring individuals at all times in Control epilogue, thus is it possible it never will.
-- No Control slides depict surveillance by the Reapers, thus it is possible it never will.
-- Shepalyst does not state he will override popular vote/demand to act as he sees fit, thus it is possible it never will.
-- Your quote is wrong. The intent to "preserve the many" is never stated. It is either "protect the many" (Paragon) or "lead the many" (Renegade).
Burden of proof is yours and you have none; it literally does not exist. I'm calling it headcanon because that's what it is. It's a possibility, but not stated fact, and no more valid than any claims I can make that what you think will happen will actually never happen.
As for the misdirection ... I have provided examples of things that could be considered "threats to the many." Again, they are: [galaxy-wide war], [extra-galactic threats], [natural disaster] (to name only a few). Normal governments respond to those things all the time. They are expected to. So, back to my original point: how is this statement problematic?
If you want to get obtuse and claim that the Reapers will go straight to harvesting again as the solution, let me point out organic government is capable of that too. Don't believe me? It happened. The Virtual Alien was a response to imminent supernova (a "threat to the many," I would point out) by making everyone upload themselves mentally into an AI ship as it was the only solution they could think of.
So... anarchy it is, then? I mean, it's always possible the Citadel Council might one day conspire to turn everyone into smoothies if the situation grows desperate enough and they might succeed. Clearly they must be thrown out with the bathwater.
THe Reapers indoctrinate. Even dead ones. It's one of their defining, not to mention most insidious powers. Do you seriously think that won't be a tool in its arsenal to keep control? I wish I had your optimism.
Your whole argument is based on "it's possible" Sure it's possible. It's also possible I'll be struck by lightning where I sit.
*beat*
But given the behavior of the previous Catalyst, I do not see optimism as a favorable trait here.
Therefore, your interpretation is at least as much headcanon as mine. But I think mine's more "valid" since I have the precedence of the previous Reaper behavior.
How is the statement problematic? What if people don't want to be ruled by the Reapers? What if the turians want to strike out on their own, research AIs of their own? Expand to other worlds and the others cry foul? Will they have the same "choice" that the Protheans gasve their subject races?
Keep in mind, there's a lot between anarchy and immortal unaccountable god-king.
Once? I counted seven in our recorded history (and I am probably missing a few)!!
No self-fulfilling prophecies in my count, either, but you can not say they "do not count" and claim to have logic on your side. You cannot trust that an AI will never operate on faulty logic (if anything, that would be one of the most likely causes of some major conflict between organic and synthetic). If you are trusting that then it is a hole in your logic.
Criminy cripes, you are basically discounting the #1 cause of death in all galactic history.
Seven? You'll have to spell those out for me. I got the geth and that's it.
And yes, the Reapers and their stalking horses are self-fulfilling prophecies.
And they only stop shooting after Shepard informs Admiral Gerrel (Para/Rene dialogue option irrelevant) that the geth are powering back up to full strength and thus will surely lay the quarian fleet to waste. Gerrel gave the order to continue the attack once he saw the geth were "completely vulnerable." He wanted them all gone, tried to do it when the opportunity presented itself, and will only be stopped if you convince him it's his own funeral.
No way around this. Do not even try it.
No simply, telling them the geth are powering up isn't enough. You need special circumstances as well as Tali's authority as an admiral to get through to them.
The geth don't want to fight you. If you can believe that for just one minute, this war will be over. You have a choice. Please...Keelah se'lai.
Well, yes, getting the Culture's dirty tricks branch in will certainly do it. Probably sort out the Reapers pretty quickly too.No simply, telling them the geth are powering up isn't enough. You need special circumstances as well as Tali's authority as an admiral to get through to them.
Right. Except it doesn't say that, it merely implies it by mentioning Shepard is partly synthetic aswell.
The exact words are:
But be warned; others will be destroyed as well. The Crucible will not discriminate, all synthetics will be targeted. Even you are partly synthetic
To be fair that's kind of a confusing line because the Catalyst plays fast and loose with the definition of 'synthetic' and we're not sure about the exact mechanism of the Crucible. I think that line can easily be read as somewhat of a threat.
The catalyst has an agenda. It wants you to opt for synthesis. It sees synthesis as the only solution that really works because it would finally allow synthetics and organics to really see the universe (and life) as the other does, and to understand each other in a way they haven't been able to yet.
Shep comes along and has alters the variables; synthesis can finally work! Yay! So it says, "well you could destroy the reapers but here's what will happen." And, I mean, in the few seconds it took the catalyst to say those words, it probably ran a bazillion simulations to predict the outcomes of destroying the reapers -- kinda like how Mordin talked about all the simulations the salarians ran to conclude that the genophage was the only viable option to stopping the krogan problem.
Then the catalyst says, "well you could control the reapers, sure, and it would work."
But I think -- speculations! yay! -- shep taking control of the reapers doesn't really solve the problem either, kind of a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" thing. Shepalyst would still have the same old problems eventually, unless it does order all the reapers to fly directly into the sun, which... brings us back to a destroy ending, only with geth and EDI still alive. Ultimately control doesn't really solve anything; at least that's what the catalyst believes. So it says, "well you could do either of those, sure, but let me tell you about this creepy glowing eyes idea I have, that only you can make possible..."
To be fair that's kind of a confusing line because the Catalyst plays fast and loose with the definition of 'synthetic' and we're not sure about the exact mechanism of the Crucible. I think that line can easily be read as somewhat of a threat.
It probably is. But it's not saying you will definetly 100% certainly die, as was claimed by the guy/gal I quoted.
The catalyst has an agenda. It wants you to opt for synthesis. It sees synthesis as the only solution that really works because it would finally allow synthetics and organics to really see the universe (and life) as the other does, and to understand each other in a way they haven't been able to yet.
Shep comes along and has alters the variables; synthesis can finally work! Yay! So it says, "well you could destroy the reapers but here's what will happen." And, I mean, in the few seconds it took the catalyst to say those words, it probably ran a bazillion simulations to predict the outcomes of destroying the reapers -- kinda like how Mordin talked about all the simulations the salarians ran to conclude that the genophage was the only viable option to stopping the krogan problem.
Then the catalyst says, "well you could control the reapers, sure, and it would work."
But I think -- speculations! yay! -- shep taking control of the reapers doesn't really solve the problem either, kind of a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" thing. Shepalyst would still have the same old problems eventually, unless it does order all the reapers to fly directly into the sun, which... brings us back to a destroy ending, only with geth and EDI still alive. Ultimately control doesn't really solve anything; at least that's what the catalyst believes. So it says, "well you could do either of those, sure, but let me tell you about this creepy glowing eyes idea I have, that only you can make possible..."
But of course it goes for Synthesis, just look at it from it's perspective:
Destroy: solves nothing. In fact, it makes everything the Catalyst has been trying to prevent totally possible and very likely.
Control: changes nothing. The Reapers are still used as a means to prevent happening what the Leviathan/Catalyst don't want to happen.
Synthesis: removes the problem completely. As soon as everyone is an organic-synthetic hybrid, the problem simply doesn't exist anymore. These hybrids can proceed to kill each other, but that's outside the Catalyst's interests. It can finally stop caring.
But of course it goes for Synthesis, just look at it from it's perspective:
Destroy: solves nothing. In fact, it makes everything the Catalyst has been trying to prevent totally possible and very likely.
Control: changes nothing. The Reapers are still used as a means to prevent happening what the Leviathan/Catalyst don't want to happen.
Synthesis: removes the problem completely. As soon as everyone is an organic-synthetic hybrid, the problem simply doesn't exist anymore. These hybrids can proceed to kill each other, but that's outside the Catalyst's interests. It can finally stop caring.
While I would argue that synthesis actually doesn't solve the problem either, this is getting to the main question I have with the Catalyst: Why is it even presenting these options? Why does something like a destroy option even exist?
Sorry if this is derailing the thread but it's something that no one has been able to explain to me since ME3 was forst released, so I had to ask because I agree with you (except for synthesis solving things), from the point of view of the catalyst, which obviously controls the situation, giving Shepard these choices makes no sense.
But of course it goes for Synthesis, just look at it from it's perspective:
Destroy: solves nothing. In fact, it makes everything the Catalyst has been trying to prevent totally possible and very likely.
Control: changes nothing. The Reapers are still used as a means to prevent happening what the Leviathan/Catalyst don't want to happen.
Synthesis: removes the problem completely. As soon as everyone is an organic-synthetic hybrid, the problem simply doesn't exist anymore. These hybrids can proceed to kill each other, but that's outside the Catalyst's interests. It can finally stop caring.
It's just my (stress my) POV. The catalyst isn't presenting shep with three equally viable options, it's trying to dissuade shep from destroying or controlling the reapers. It tried for millions of years to find a solution and it failed because, for all its intelligence and gathered knowledge, the catalyst never grasped that it took organics (crucible) and synthetics (citadel) working together to make a viable solution possible. That's the flaw in the catalyst's reasoning; it never gave organics enough credit. I don't remember the exact quote, but Javik kinda touched on that when he said something about synthetics believing organics have no purpose.
What if, when it first became aware of the crucible -- however many cycles ago that was -- the catalyst had said to itself, "Hey these organics might be on to something here." But instead it chose not to include the possibility that the crucible could change everything into its calculations, not until the organics actually succeeded in docking the crucible to the citadel and an organic was standing right in front of it.
I think "War is hell" or "harsh realities of war" would have more of an emphasis on pain and suffering, and maybe seeming meaningless death. Also, those are very broad difficult to define, or just "undefined", categories, much more so than sacrifice. They are also open to your other criticism: it's a war story, naturally these things happen.That reads as a "war is hell" theme more than a sacrifice one. Mordin is an example of sacrifice, the rest come from the "harsh realities of war" angle, particularly what Garrus says. And like he says in ME2 - "We're going to lose people". Lose, not sacrifice. Even when you can use the word it doesn't make it the theme.
...
Well, dunno who said that. Sounds familiar, but I probably dismissed it as a rational argument for anything to do with the plot....
Perhaps this is all just quibbling about semantics but when people start saying "That's the theme and therefore it would be inappropriate if Shepard survived, or the geth survived, or EDI survived" they've gone way too far.
While I would argue that synthesis actually doesn't solve the problem either, this is getting to the main question I have with the Catalyst: Why is it even presenting these options? Why does something like a destroy option even exist?
Hardwired into the crucible. It was made to destroy the Reapers, you know?
It's just my (stress my) POV. The catalyst isn't presenting shep with three equally viable options, it's trying to dissuade shep from destroying or controlling the reapers. It tried for millions of years to find a solution and it failed because, for all its intelligence and gathered knowledge, the catalyst never grasped that it took organics (crucible) and synthetics (citadel) working together to make a viable solution possible. That's the flaw in the catalyst's reasoning; it never gave organics enough credit. I don't remember the exact quote, but Javik kinda touched on that when he said something about synthetics believing organics have no purpose.
What if, when it first became aware of the crucible -- however many cycles ago that was -- the catalyst had said to itself, "Hey these organics might be on to something here." But instead it chose not to include the possibility that the crucible could change everything into its calculations, not until the organics actually succeeded in docking the crucible to the citadel and an organic was standing right in front of it.
Really now, Spork?
'I have tried... similar solutions in the past. It cannot be forced'
And again, as said to MrFob: the Crucible was built to destroy the Reapers. Why would it have thought: 'oh boy, they might be on to something?!' For all it cares, these puny organics would undo all it's work in a matter of seconds if they succeeded. Only when the Crucible docked it became aware of the other options (probably it became aware of Control by TIM though, but again this isn't really a solution) and that, was probably the reason it decided to wake up Shepard at all.
Speculation: maybe the Catalyst presented Destroy in an attempt to get us to take it seriously.
Yeah and that. It would be quite remarkable if the super weapon designed to destroy the Reapers did anything but.
But I'm a bigger fan of the idea that Crucible was made/adjusted by a species that was aware of the Catalyst and made sure the Crucible overrode some of it's coding.
Retour en haut